It's not that a mechanism is needed to prevent the introduction of novel body plans through variation. Your query has it backward: The truth is that evolution provides no mechanism for creating novel body plans. Modifying existing traits is one thing. The de novo creation of novel body plans is an entirely different thing. Novel body plans require new information, not modified existing information. You are talking about two different things here and one does not follow from the other.

Novel body plans have been sought, have been mightily encouraged in the lab, and have never been observed. No emperical evidence exists for the emergence of novel body plans through random mutation. Modification, yes. Novel body plans, never.

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

Wow, you totally didn't contradict yourself just there!

How do you go from "No one observed arbitrary reclassification" to "We observed [...] arbitrary reclassification" in 10 seconds?

I ask again, what makes this observation insignificant?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You yourself called the classification of species "arbitrary." Maybe you didn't understand what arbitrary meant, I don't know.

But since arbitrary is not compatible with "based on any reason or system," it follows that the classification of species is not based on any reason or system.

You asked, what's insignificant about reclassification of species? I have to ask you, what in the world could POSSIBLY be significant about the reclassification of organisms that is not based on any reason or system?

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

Wow, you totally didn't contradict yourself just there!

How do you go from "No one observed arbitrary reclassification" to "We observed [...] arbitrary reclassification" in 10 seconds?

I ask again, what makes this observation insignificant?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You yourself called the classification of species "arbitrary." Maybe you didn't understand what arbitrary meant, I don't know.

But since arbitrary is not compatible with "based on any reason or system," it follows that the classification of species is not based on any reason or system.

You asked, what's insignificant about reclassification of species? I have to ask you, what in the world could POSSIBLY be significant about the reclassification of organisms that is not based on any reason or system?

I will try to word my question a little clearer, as you obviously didn't get it.

We do not observe "arbitrary reclassification" In a laboratory. The "arbitrary reclassification" is something that happens entirely in out minds as a result of an observation. That observation is a NON-arbitrary alteration in traits, significant and quantifiable.

Example (please note that this is the result of a real experiment, done by real scientists):

Fish A:Remains juvenile for twelve months, with little development or growth. Then, in the span of one or two months, matures and grows rapidly into adulthood. Adult colors are a vibrant blue and yellow. The fish feeds on smaller fish.

Fish B:Remains juvenile for roughly three months, growing and maturing at a steady rate. Once reaching adulthood ( at a smaller size than fish A), fish B develops a splotched black and yellow-green color, with the ability to turn the tips of the fin and tail fluorescent blue during mating season. Fish B tends to feed on insects.

Fish A and fish B live in two very separate perks of the same lake.

I do not think anyone here will argue that fish A and fish B are the same species.

Scientists believed that a population of fish A migrated to a separate part of the lake, and evolved into fish B.

To test this hypothesis, they isolated fish A and selected for the traits of fish B.

Twelves years later, Fish from the experimental group were identical to fish B, and were nothing like fish A.

The bolded is the observation that is commonly termed "speciation", and the bolded is what you referred to as meaningless.

In response to this observation, the scientists classified these two populations (fish B and the experimental group) as the same species. This classification is arbitrary, and had it been done that way or another, it has no effect on the observation itself.

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

Wow, you totally didn't contradict yourself just there!

How do you go from "No one observed arbitrary reclassification" to "We observed [...] arbitrary reclassification" in 10 seconds?

I ask again, what makes this observation insignificant?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You yourself called the classification of species "arbitrary." Maybe you didn't understand what arbitrary meant, I don't know.

But since arbitrary is not compatible with "based on any reason or system," it follows that the classification of species is not based on any reason or system.

You asked, what's insignificant about reclassification of species? I have to ask you, what in the world could POSSIBLY be significant about the reclassification of organisms that is not based on any reason or system?

I will try to word my question a little clearer, as you obviously didn't get it.

We do not observe "arbitrary reclassification" In a laboratory. The "arbitrary reclassification" is something that happens entirely in out minds as a result of an observation. That observation is a NON-arbitrary alteration in traits, significant and quantifiable.

Example (please note that this is the result of a real experiment, done by real scientists):

Fish A:Remains juvenile for twelve months, with little development or growth. Then, in the span of one or two months, matures and grows rapidly into adulthood. Adult colors are a vibrant blue and yellow. The fish feeds on smaller fish.

Fish B:Remains juvenile for roughly three months, growing and maturing at a steady rate. Once reaching adulthood ( at a smaller size than fish A), fish B develops a splotched black and yellow-green color, with the ability to turn the tips of the fin and tail fluorescent blue during mating season. Fish B tends to feed on insects.

Fish A and fish B live in two very separate perks of the same lake.

I do not think anyone here will argue that fish A and fish B are the same species.

Scientists believed that a population of fish A migrated to a separate part of the lake, and evolved into fish B.

To test this hypothesis, they isolated fish A and selected for the traits of fish B.

Twelves years later, Fish from the experimental group were identical to fish B, and were nothing like fish A.

The bolded is the observation that is commonly termed "speciation", and the bolded is what you referred to as meaningless.

In response to this observation, the scientists classified these two populations (fish B and the experimental group) as the same species. This classification is arbitrary, and had it been done that way or another, it has no effect on the observation itself.

I ask again, why is this observation meaningless?

Speciation is a meaningless word. Which is why the argument "We've observed speciation" cannot be used as an argument for UCA. Which was my point all along.

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

Wow, you totally didn't contradict yourself just there!

How do you go from "No one observed arbitrary reclassification" to "We observed [...] arbitrary reclassification" in 10 seconds?

I ask again, what makes this observation insignificant?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You yourself called the classification of species "arbitrary." Maybe you didn't understand what arbitrary meant, I don't know.

But since arbitrary is not compatible with "based on any reason or system," it follows that the classification of species is not based on any reason or system.

You asked, what's insignificant about reclassification of species? I have to ask you, what in the world could POSSIBLY be significant about the reclassification of organisms that is not based on any reason or system?

I will try to word my question a little clearer, as you obviously didn't get it.

We do not observe "arbitrary reclassification" In a laboratory. The "arbitrary reclassification" is something that happens entirely in out minds as a result of an observation. That observation is a NON-arbitrary alteration in traits, significant and quantifiable.

Example (please note that this is the result of a real experiment, done by real scientists):

Fish A:Remains juvenile for twelve months, with little development or growth. Then, in the span of one or two months, matures and grows rapidly into adulthood. Adult colors are a vibrant blue and yellow. The fish feeds on smaller fish.

Fish B:Remains juvenile for roughly three months, growing and maturing at a steady rate. Once reaching adulthood ( at a smaller size than fish A), fish B develops a splotched black and yellow-green color, with the ability to turn the tips of the fin and tail fluorescent blue during mating season. Fish B tends to feed on insects.

Fish A and fish B live in two very separate perks of the same lake.

I do not think anyone here will argue that fish A and fish B are the same species.

Scientists believed that a population of fish A migrated to a separate part of the lake, and evolved into fish B.

To test this hypothesis, they isolated fish A and selected for the traits of fish B.

Twelves years later, Fish from the experimental group were identical to fish B, and were nothing like fish A.

The bolded is the observation that is commonly termed "speciation", and the bolded is what you referred to as meaningless.

In response to this observation, the scientists classified these two populations (fish B and the experimental group) as the same species. This classification is arbitrary, and had it been done that way or another, it has no effect on the observation itself.

I ask again, why is this observation meaningless?

Speciation is a meaningless word. Which is why the argument "We've observed speciation" cannot be used as an argument for UCA. Which was my point all along.

I am holding you to this. Why are the observations from this experiment meaningless?

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

Wow, you totally didn't contradict yourself just there!

How do you go from "No one observed arbitrary reclassification" to "We observed [...] arbitrary reclassification" in 10 seconds?

I ask again, what makes this observation insignificant?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You yourself called the classification of species "arbitrary." Maybe you didn't understand what arbitrary meant, I don't know.

But since arbitrary is not compatible with "based on any reason or system," it follows that the classification of species is not based on any reason or system.

You asked, what's insignificant about reclassification of species? I have to ask you, what in the world could POSSIBLY be significant about the reclassification of organisms that is not based on any reason or system?

I will try to word my question a little clearer, as you obviously didn't get it.

We do not observe "arbitrary reclassification" In a laboratory. The "arbitrary reclassification" is something that happens entirely in out minds as a result of an observation. That observation is a NON-arbitrary alteration in traits, significant and quantifiable.

Example (please note that this is the result of a real experiment, done by real scientists):

Fish A:Remains juvenile for twelve months, with little development or growth. Then, in the span of one or two months, matures and grows rapidly into adulthood. Adult colors are a vibrant blue and yellow. The fish feeds on smaller fish.

Fish B:Remains juvenile for roughly three months, growing and maturing at a steady rate. Once reaching adulthood ( at a smaller size than fish A), fish B develops a splotched black and yellow-green color, with the ability to turn the tips of the fin and tail fluorescent blue during mating season. Fish B tends to feed on insects.

Fish A and fish B live in two very separate perks of the same lake.

I do not think anyone here will argue that fish A and fish B are the same species.

Scientists believed that a population of fish A migrated to a separate part of the lake, and evolved into fish B.

To test this hypothesis, they isolated fish A and selected for the traits of fish B.

Twelves years later, Fish from the experimental group were identical to fish B, and were nothing like fish A.

The bolded is the observation that is commonly termed "speciation", and the bolded is what you referred to as meaningless.

In response to this observation, the scientists classified these two populations (fish B and the experimental group) as the same species. This classification is arbitrary, and had it been done that way or another, it has no effect on the observation itself.

I ask again, why is this observation meaningless?

Speciation is a meaningless word. Which is why the argument "We've observed speciation" cannot be used as an argument for UCA. Which was my point all along.

I am holding you to this. Why are the observations from this experiment meaningless?

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

Yes, what they refer to as speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

Correct, it is as meaningless as if specie-hood were decided by hair color, or some other minute genetic difference. No new organism is ever produced, only variations of the existing organism.

That is what I am asking. If two populations split and had no ability to reintegrate their genes with each other. What is stopping the cumulative groups of small variations from resulting in an organism which is very different from each other?

Surely there has to be some mechanism to stop it otherwise. It is easy enough to say that hair color and skin color change, but what would stop brain size, hair growth, different social patterns, and ultimately such a different organism in the terms of genome that it gets labled as something different.

Put quite simply, there can not be minor evolution of features that does not result in a very different organism in a million years. What stops it from happening?

At 2/2/2014 7:40:49 PM, joepalcsak wrote:It's not that a mechanism is needed to prevent the introduction of novel body plans through variation. Your query has it backward: The truth is that evolution provides no mechanism for creating novel body plans. Modifying existing traits is one thing. The de novo creation of novel body plans is an entirely different thing. Novel body plans require new information, not modified existing information. You are talking about two different things here and one does not follow from the other.

Novel body plans have been sought, have been mightily encouraged in the lab, and have never been observed. No emperical evidence exists for the emergence of novel body plans through random mutation. Modification, yes. Novel body plans, never.

I beg to differ. You have it backwards. Let's extend this out to infinity. At some point small trait changes add up to extremely large changes.

One can not merely imply the human condition has change barrier which change can not happen without stating the mechanism which halts all changes.

First and foremost where does the barrier exist? Clearly blue eyes versus brown eyes can be changed but yet that does not change a human into something else.

What about this? What if an isolated population grew exceptionally large brains and it added in different emotional states that helped them cooperate more, even to the point they begin to work for the community rather than to gather personal possessions.

First and foremost you can't say that it is an impossible change. When science is finding a gene expression which impacts an individuals capability and willingness to extend trust, it is not unreasonable to expect the above changes could not be completed just like how northern Europeans tended to blue eyes and Asians tended to brown eyes.

And if you are saying that level of change can't happen then what is the mechanism?

Maybe that alone is not enough of a change to say that group of humans while very different in behavior is still not different enough to not be called human.

A lot of small changes = a big change over time. What stops big change being big enough to produce an organism that is so different and unable to breed with modern humans?

If there is no mechanism then you don't have anything stopping blue eyes from turning into blue laser beam producing eyes.

Correct, it is as meaningless as if specie-hood were decided by hair color, or some other minute genetic difference. No new organism is ever produced, only variations of the existing organism.

That is what I am asking. If two populations split and had no ability to reintegrate their genes with each other.

Then you just have two groups of the same organism that can't interbreed, that's it, just like you can have groups of people who have different eye color. Sure, they may be different in some sense, because they will acquire different mutations. You have to remember though, you're still dealing with the essentially the same organism that you had when they split, so even though the mutations might be different in each group, they are not going to be drastically different. If we're talking about fish, then both groups will have mutations that effect fish genes, or the expression of fish genes. They are not going to magically change a fish genome into the genome of something other than a fish, no matter how many millions of years you throw at it.

You also have to remember that new generations are built from the DNA of the ancestral group, so you have that constant, never-ending supply of fish DNA as the foundation for the construction of the new offspring. How can you possibly overwrite that existing program, when the existing program is what forms the offspring, and is continually flowing into every generation??

There are some humans who can't breed with certain other members of the human population, but put them with someone else and both of them are perfectly fertile. For whatever reason, genetically or molecularly, they are simply unable to procreate when put together. We don't label either of those groups as being a different species of humans, do we?? Of course not, so why would you apply a concept to all other life forms, but not do it with humans, when humans exhibit the very same reproductive isolation among certain groups??

What is stopping the cumulative groups of small variations from resulting in an organism which is very different from each other?

What's stopping it is the exact same thing that stops organisms from changing into different organisms, in a single generation, the foundation of ancestral DNA. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that will agree with me that there is indeed a mechanism that stops a fish from changing into a bird, in one generation.

So, you're really asking the wrong question here, the question you should require evolution to answer for you is this...Why would that mechanism that we already know about, which requires that when two humans breed you're guaranteed to get another human rather than an armadillo, suddenly stop working the way we've observed it to work for thousands of years??

To use computers as an analogy, UCA requires that a new operating system be installed into new unit, which needs the old system to make sure it keeps running.

Surely there has to be some mechanism to stop it otherwise. It is easy enough to say that hair color and skin color change, but what would stop brain size, hair growth, different social patterns, and ultimately such a different organism in the terms of genome that it gets labled as something different.

Put quite simply, there can not be minor evolution of features that does not result in a very different organism in a million years.

That's an easy claim to refute, if you're willing to look at the evidence. Just look at any living fossil, coelacanth, horseshoe crab, fern, etc. Fossils exist that have been dated at millions of years old, yet they remain alive today, with very little change.

When you stop looking at it as though these organisms are "evolving", in the sense that you guys mean it, at see what nature is actually telling you, you'll see that organisms adapt to their environment, in different ways, and that gives us the different varieties that we see today.

Correct, it is as meaningless as if specie-hood were decided by hair color, or some other minute genetic difference. No new organism is ever produced, only variations of the existing organism.

That is what I am asking. If two populations split and had no ability to reintegrate their genes with each other.

Then you just have two groups of the same organism that can't interbreed, that's it, just like you can have groups of people who have different eye color. Sure, they may be different in some sense, because they will acquire different mutations. You have to remember though, you're still dealing with the essentially the same organism that you had when they split, so even though the mutations might be different in each group, they are not going to be drastically different. If we're talking about fish, then both groups will have mutations that effect fish genes, or the expression of fish genes. They are not going to magically change a fish genome into the genome of something other than a fish, no matter how many millions of years you throw at it.

You also have to remember that new generations are built from the DNA of the ancestral group, so you have that constant, never-ending supply of fish DNA as the foundation for the construction of the new offspring. How can you possibly overwrite that existing program, when the existing program is what forms the offspring, and is continually flowing into every generation??

There are some humans who can't breed with certain other members of the human population, but put them with someone else and both of them are perfectly fertile. For whatever reason, genetically or molecularly, they are simply unable to procreate when put together. We don't label either of those groups as being a different species of humans, do we?? Of course not, so why would you apply a concept to all other life forms, but not do it with humans, when humans exhibit the very same reproductive isolation among certain groups??

What is stopping the cumulative groups of small variations from resulting in an organism which is very different from each other?

What's stopping it is the exact same thing that stops organisms from changing into different organisms, in a single generation, the foundation of ancestral DNA. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that will agree with me that there is indeed a mechanism that stops a fish from changing into a bird, in one generation.

So, you're really asking the wrong question here, the question you should require evolution to answer for you is this...Why would that mechanism that we already know about, which requires that when two humans breed you're guaranteed to get another human rather than an armadillo, suddenly stop working the way we've observed it to work for thousands of years??

To use computers as an analogy, UCA requires that a new operating system be installed into new unit, which needs the old system to make sure it keeps running.

Surely there has to be some mechanism to stop it otherwise. It is easy enough to say that hair color and skin color change, but what would stop brain size, hair growth, different social patterns, and ultimately such a different organism in the terms of genome that it gets labled as something different.

Put quite simply, there can not be minor evolution of features that does not result in a very different organism in a million years.

That's an easy claim to refute, if you're willing to look at the evidence. Just look at any living fossil, coelacanth, horseshoe crab, fern, etc. Fossils exist that have been dated at millions of years old, yet they remain alive today, with very little change.

When you stop looking at it as though these organisms are "evolving", in the sense that you guys mean it, at see what nature is actually telling you, you'll see that organisms adapt to their environment, in different ways, and that gives us the different varieties that we see today.

I never said that an organism can't be relatively static over a long period of time Once again you are talking that an organism can adapt to environment via minor dna and genetic changes, but again you express there is a limit to those dna changes.

The only mechanism that you have given me that limits the number or quantity of dna changes a population can experience over time is the constancy of the environment.

At this point I don't even care to label the organism as human or not human. What are the limits of the dna changes that can happen versus those that can not happen to a population over time that is put through long term environment (habitat, disease, community, climate, etc) changes?

Why is it not important to catalog which dna changes can be changed versus those that can not?

Your entire premise has to be based upon limits on how much dna of an organism's descendants can change over time or in theory it can completely change to something that does not remotely match the original organism.

So lets stop avoiding the question. Does God regulate the environment? is there a chemical involved with stopping some DNA changes once they get too far removed from what the original organism is? Is there a soul which defines what a human is, so even if we resulted in a blob that had not legs and we slithered on mucus and communicated via brain signals rather than vocalizations we still are humans because of the soul?

Just give me a reason rather than an unqualified statement that a change of DNA of that magnitude can't happen.

At 2/2/2014 7:40:49 PM, joepalcsak wrote:It's not that a mechanism is needed to prevent the introduction of novel body plans through variation. Your query has it backward: The truth is that evolution provides no mechanism for creating novel body plans. Modifying existing traits is one thing. The de novo creation of novel body plans is an entirely different thing. Novel body plans require new information, not modified existing information. You are talking about two different things here and one does not follow from the other.

Novel body plans have been sought, have been mightily encouraged in the lab, and have never been observed. No emperical evidence exists for the emergence of novel body plans through random mutation. Modification, yes. Novel body plans, never.

Think about it like this: You have a metal tube; one side has clay on it and the other is exposed to fire. Over time the inside contracts while the outside expands. This causes a tiny variation in the shape. Over time these variations stack up turning it into a twisted tube. You started with a straight tube but over time variations added up giving it a novel shape.

Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson

At 2/3/2014 8:14:54 AM, slo1 wrote:I'm not trying to be a d-bag here. I just want to understand.

Until you can explain how many little changes don't add up to a big change over time your theories can not be taken seriously.

If you agree traits can change over time, what stops the cumulative level of traits being so different as to have an organism which is not even close to the original?

If you have not thought of this mechanism, then you have a gigantic hole in your entire premise. GIGANTIC!

Maybe you can think of it this way: Of course changes accumulate, but can any amount of change accumulate and you still have reproduction?

There is an unrealized assumption of intent here. You are assuming that survival is somehow preferred by the laws of nature, and I think that's wrong.

So are you are saying that there is a limit to the quantity of dna changes that can happen because there not environmental factors that favor certain traits over others?

I think you went too deep. I don't even know what "natural law" is. I am just remarking on change. When one agrees that dna can cause small changes and variances such as blue eyes versus brown eyest, what stops the cumulative collection of small changes from being an entirely different organism what it originated from?

Maybe it will help to use an analogy. The good old game of telephone. Person 1 tells person 2 something. Person 2 tells person 3. By the time that it gets to person X it is completely different message. Even if one were to add the rule that only one word can be different when the message gets relayed from person to person. By the time it gets down the line the message can still be completely different.

What stops small allowable changes in dna from adding up to form a completely different organism over time?

So far I'm only hearing:- Don't be concerned about that.- The environment does not change that drastically and traits are not more advantageous than others, so we will just be a big mixing pot of small variations.

At 2/3/2014 8:14:54 AM, slo1 wrote:I'm not trying to be a d-bag here. I just want to understand.

Until you can explain how many little changes don't add up to a big change over time your theories can not be taken seriously.

If you agree traits can change over time, what stops the cumulative level of traits being so different as to have an organism which is not even close to the original?

If you have not thought of this mechanism, then you have a gigantic hole in your entire premise. GIGANTIC!

Maybe you can think of it this way: Of course changes accumulate, but can any amount of change accumulate and you still have reproduction?

There is an unrealized assumption of intent here. You are assuming that survival is somehow preferred by the laws of nature, and I think that's wrong.

So are you are saying that there is a limit to the quantity of dna changes that can happen because there not environmental factors that favor certain traits over others?

I think you went too deep.

You're going too deep, without realizing it. There is no favoritism. There's just F=ma. Gravity, electric charge, etc. Continued below...

Maybe it will help to use an analogy. The good old game of telephone. Person 1 tells person 2 something. Person 2 tells person 3. By the time that it gets to person X it is completely different message. Even if one were to add the rule that only one word can be different when the message gets relayed from person to person. By the time it gets down the line the message can still be completely different.

There is no telephone. There is not even string and tin cans. There is just F=ma. Gravity, electric charge, chemical reactions, etc.

You have made an intelligent design analogy. But that's not your theory. Your theory is just that molecules bump into each other. So strip out all the intelligence stuff if you're going to talk about a non-intelligent process.

What stops small allowable changes in dna from adding up to form a completely different organism over time?

So far I'm only hearing:- Don't be concerned about that.- The environment does not change that drastically and traits are not more advantageous than others, so we will just be a big mixing pot of small variations.

At 2/3/2014 8:14:54 AM, slo1 wrote:I'm not trying to be a d-bag here. I just want to understand.

Until you can explain how many little changes don't add up to a big change over time your theories can not be taken seriously.

If you agree traits can change over time, what stops the cumulative level of traits being so different as to have an organism which is not even close to the original?

If you have not thought of this mechanism, then you have a gigantic hole in your entire premise. GIGANTIC!

Maybe you can think of it this way: Of course changes accumulate, but can any amount of change accumulate and you still have reproduction?

There is an unrealized assumption of intent here. You are assuming that survival is somehow preferred by the laws of nature, and I think that's wrong.

So are you are saying that there is a limit to the quantity of dna changes that can happen because there not environmental factors that favor certain traits over others?

I think you went too deep.

You're going too deep, without realizing it. There is no favoritism. There's just F=ma. Gravity, electric charge, etc. Continued below...

Maybe it will help to use an analogy. The good old game of telephone. Person 1 tells person 2 something. Person 2 tells person 3. By the time that it gets to person X it is completely different message. Even if one were to add the rule that only one word can be different when the message gets relayed from person to person. By the time it gets down the line the message can still be completely different.

There is no telephone. There is not even string and tin cans. There is just F=ma. Gravity, electric charge, chemical reactions, etc.

You have made an intelligent design analogy. But that's not your theory. Your theory is just that molecules bump into each other. So strip out all the intelligence stuff if you're going to talk about a non-intelligent process.

What stops small allowable changes in dna from adding up to form a completely different organism over time?

So far I'm only hearing:- Don't be concerned about that.- The environment does not change that drastically and traits are not more advantageous than others, so we will just be a big mixing pot of small variations.

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

Wow, you totally didn't contradict yourself just there!

How do you go from "No one observed arbitrary reclassification" to "We observed [...] arbitrary reclassification" in 10 seconds?

I ask again, what makes this observation insignificant?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You yourself called the classification of species "arbitrary." Maybe you didn't understand what arbitrary meant, I don't know.

But since arbitrary is not compatible with "based on any reason or system," it follows that the classification of species is not based on any reason or system.

You asked, what's insignificant about reclassification of species? I have to ask you, what in the world could POSSIBLY be significant about the reclassification of organisms that is not based on any reason or system?

I will try to word my question a little clearer, as you obviously didn't get it.

We do not observe "arbitrary reclassification" In a laboratory. The "arbitrary reclassification" is something that happens entirely in out minds as a result of an observation. That observation is a NON-arbitrary alteration in traits, significant and quantifiable.

Example (please note that this is the result of a real experiment, done by real scientists):

Fish A:Remains juvenile for twelve months, with little development or growth. Then, in the span of one or two months, matures and grows rapidly into adulthood. Adult colors are a vibrant blue and yellow. The fish feeds on smaller fish.

Fish B:Remains juvenile for roughly three months, growing and maturing at a steady rate. Once reaching adulthood ( at a smaller size than fish A), fish B develops a splotched black and yellow-green color, with the ability to turn the tips of the fin and tail fluorescent blue during mating season. Fish B tends to feed on insects.

Fish A and fish B live in two very separate perks of the same lake.

I do not think anyone here will argue that fish A and fish B are the same species.

Scientists believed that a population of fish A migrated to a separate part of the lake, and evolved into fish B.

To test this hypothesis, they isolated fish A and selected for the traits of fish B.

Twelves years later, Fish from the experimental group were identical to fish B, and were nothing like fish A.

The bolded is the observation that is commonly termed "speciation", and the bolded is what you referred to as meaningless.

In response to this observation, the scientists classified these two populations (fish B and the experimental group) as the same species. This classification is arbitrary, and had it been done that way or another, it has no effect on the observation itself.

I ask again, why is this observation meaningless?

Speciation is a meaningless word. Which is why the argument "We've observed speciation" cannot be used as an argument for UCA. Which was my point all along.

I am holding you to this. Why are the observations from this experiment meaningless?

They aren't.

"medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation."

The bolded is an exact quote from earlier in this thread. You clearly state that the observations coined speciation (though arbitrarily named such) are meaningless.

In your previous post, you say that they are not meaningless. Is this a change in opinion or a self-contradiction?

At 2/3/2014 8:14:54 AM, slo1 wrote:I'm not trying to be a d-bag here. I just want to understand.

Until you can explain how many little changes don't add up to a big change over time your theories can not be taken seriously.

If you agree traits can change over time, what stops the cumulative level of traits being so different as to have an organism which is not even close to the original?

If you have not thought of this mechanism, then you have a gigantic hole in your entire premise. GIGANTIC!

Maybe you can think of it this way: Of course changes accumulate, but can any amount of change accumulate and you still have reproduction?

There is an unrealized assumption of intent here. You are assuming that survival is somehow preferred by the laws of nature, and I think that's wrong.

So are you are saying that there is a limit to the quantity of dna changes that can happen because there not environmental factors that favor certain traits over others?

I think you went too deep.

You're going too deep, without realizing it. There is no favoritism. There's just F=ma. Gravity, electric charge, etc. Continued below...

I don't understand your point and what it has to do with DNA and gene expression and how they may or may not change in populations over time.

Maybe it will help to use an analogy. The good old game of telephone. Person 1 tells person 2 something. Person 2 tells person 3. By the time that it gets to person X it is completely different message. Even if one were to add the rule that only one word can be different when the message gets relayed from person to person. By the time it gets down the line the message can still be completely different.

There is no telephone. There is not even string and tin cans. There is just F=ma. Gravity, electric charge, chemical reactions, etc.

You have made an intelligent design analogy. But that's not your theory. Your theory is just that molecules bump into each other. So strip out all the intelligence stuff if you're going to talk about a non-intelligent process.

What stops small allowable changes in dna from adding up to form a completely different organism over time?

So far I'm only hearing:- Don't be concerned about that.- The environment does not change that drastically and traits are not more advantageous than others, so we will just be a big mixing pot of small variations.

What stops too many changes is death and extinction.

Ok, that means a population of X if they could avoid extinction, in theory has the ability to have enough changes in DNA over time that they could be completely unrecognizable as an X?

At 2/2/2014 4:38:56 PM, slo1 wrote:This is to those who agree that variations do happen in populations of the same species, but it can not result in a new species.

Speciation has already occurred and been observed, so this thread is a pointless venture.

I believe medic0506 is still against the observational evidence, so while it may not apply to your position, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.

medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation.

And why, pray tell, is it a meaningless observation?

You said yourself that the classification of species is "completely arbitrary."

As speciation is simply the event of a population of organisms being completely arbitrarily reclassified in relation to the arbitrary classification of their ancestors, speciation is pretty meaningless.

No one observed "arbitrary reclassification". We observed the significant, quantifiable alteration that warranted the "arbitrary reclassification" that we performed within our minds.

Wow, you totally didn't contradict yourself just there!

How do you go from "No one observed arbitrary reclassification" to "We observed [...] arbitrary reclassification" in 10 seconds?

I ask again, what makes this observation insignificant?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You yourself called the classification of species "arbitrary." Maybe you didn't understand what arbitrary meant, I don't know.

But since arbitrary is not compatible with "based on any reason or system," it follows that the classification of species is not based on any reason or system.

You asked, what's insignificant about reclassification of species? I have to ask you, what in the world could POSSIBLY be significant about the reclassification of organisms that is not based on any reason or system?

I will try to word my question a little clearer, as you obviously didn't get it.

We do not observe "arbitrary reclassification" In a laboratory. The "arbitrary reclassification" is something that happens entirely in out minds as a result of an observation. That observation is a NON-arbitrary alteration in traits, significant and quantifiable.

Example (please note that this is the result of a real experiment, done by real scientists):

Fish A:Remains juvenile for twelve months, with little development or growth. Then, in the span of one or two months, matures and grows rapidly into adulthood. Adult colors are a vibrant blue and yellow. The fish feeds on smaller fish.

Fish B:Remains juvenile for roughly three months, growing and maturing at a steady rate. Once reaching adulthood ( at a smaller size than fish A), fish B develops a splotched black and yellow-green color, with the ability to turn the tips of the fin and tail fluorescent blue during mating season. Fish B tends to feed on insects.

Fish A and fish B live in two very separate perks of the same lake.

I do not think anyone here will argue that fish A and fish B are the same species.

Scientists believed that a population of fish A migrated to a separate part of the lake, and evolved into fish B.

To test this hypothesis, they isolated fish A and selected for the traits of fish B.

Twelves years later, Fish from the experimental group were identical to fish B, and were nothing like fish A.

The bolded is the observation that is commonly termed "speciation", and the bolded is what you referred to as meaningless.

In response to this observation, the scientists classified these two populations (fish B and the experimental group) as the same species. This classification is arbitrary, and had it been done that way or another, it has no effect on the observation itself.

I ask again, why is this observation meaningless?

Speciation is a meaningless word. Which is why the argument "We've observed speciation" cannot be used as an argument for UCA. Which was my point all along.

I am holding you to this. Why are the observations from this experiment meaningless?

They aren't.

"medic0506 is not against observational evidence, and will agree with me that speciation has been observed.

He will also agree that it is a completely meaningless observation."

The bolded is an exact quote from earlier in this thread. You clearly state that the observations coined speciation (though arbitrarily named such) are meaningless.

In your previous post, you say that they are not meaningless. Is this a change in opinion or a self-contradiction?